- Joined
- Jan 24, 2002
- Location
- New Jersey
which is better, WhiteWater or RBX? I know they just came out with test results, but I dont have time to compare them...
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
RBX or WW
- Thread starter kttdkt
- Start date
vhttp://forum.oc-forums.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=248528
also http://overclockers.com/articles886/
also http://overclockers.com/articles886/
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2003
RBX beats the WW by approximately 0.007 C/W. I would personally go with the WW because of the price, but, Bill Adams' may have been done with a decently lapped WW. A poorly lapped WW as you would probably buy now would probably be even worse.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2003
I am, but I'm not doing it C/W for C/W. I compared the Slitedge in each, and found a 22% difference. Admittedly, this is NOT the most accurate way to do it. I e-mailed Joe, to see if he would do a WW as a reference point, but he told me to use the Slitedge. 
On the plus side Cathar said he was going to try to get Joe to do a WW and a Cascade.
On the plus side Cathar said he was going to try to get Joe to do a WW and a Cascade.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2002
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
AngryAlpaca said:I am, but I'm not doing it C/W for C/W. I compared the Slitedge in each, and found a 22% difference. Admittedly, this is NOT the most accurate way to do it. I e-mailed Joe, to see if he would do a WW as a reference point, but he told me to use the Slitedge.
Why not do it by comparing MCW5002 to MCW5002 between the test-beds?
By that token the WW would be in front of the RBX by 0.02C/W. Or really if we averaged the differences out between the SlitEdge and the MCW5002, the WW is still in front by about 0.015C/W.
None of the above makes sense though. Really it's just best to wait until JoeC tests the WW.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2003
Oh... Bill did do a MCW-5002...
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2003
I would say that either one is going to perform well, so just go with whichever is cheaper/your favorite.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2003
Ack... Well, I messed that up bad. I think, (I don't remember) that I figured that a 0.78 X the Bill Adam's would be the same as 1.22 X the Joe (Yes I do realize that that is a really terrible calculation, now) ****.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2001
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2003
- Location
- Warsaw, Poland
1. 0.002 C/W or whatever is no difference at all
2. there are probing errors - not big, but enough not to consider 3rd digit after point, 100% correct.
And how can you know that heater is for example 100W, not 100,2W or 99,98W? It will completly change 3rd digit.
Also, even if tests are correct, it's hard to compare efficiency of 2 blocks if tests were made at different conditions. As Cathar suggested, we may comparetests by comparing Swifty 5002 results.
However to have correct so unimportant 3rd digit after point, there should be "very perfect":
- heater
- block placement
- the same thermal paste applied in exactly the same way and precision
- temperature measuring with 2 places after point correct
- ideal heater insulation - on lower ambient, greater part of heat will go to air
- maybe other things
And of course such differnce will change nothing.
This way:
- assume that tests are correct up to let's say 0.002-0.005 C/W what is still crazy accuracy
- or give possible error range
2. there are probing errors - not big, but enough not to consider 3rd digit after point, 100% correct.
And how can you know that heater is for example 100W, not 100,2W or 99,98W? It will completly change 3rd digit.
Also, even if tests are correct, it's hard to compare efficiency of 2 blocks if tests were made at different conditions. As Cathar suggested, we may comparetests by comparing Swifty 5002 results.
However to have correct so unimportant 3rd digit after point, there should be "very perfect":
- heater
- block placement
- the same thermal paste applied in exactly the same way and precision
- temperature measuring with 2 places after point correct
- ideal heater insulation - on lower ambient, greater part of heat will go to air
- maybe other things
And of course such differnce will change nothing.
This way:
- assume that tests are correct up to let's say 0.002-0.005 C/W what is still crazy accuracy
- or give possible error range
